A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled February 7 that Proposition 8 violates the federal constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and due process of the law. Many legal activists said the ruling was crafted in a way to maximize reliance on previous Supreme Court ruling and, thus, survive what many believe is an inevitable appeal to the nation’s highest court.

Attorneys defending Proposition 8 could have taken their appeal of the panel’s decision directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, but failure to exhaust all lower court appeals can diminish the probability that the high court will accept review.

The 9th Circuit has handled the case, thus far, on an expedited basis and, if the full circuit does so, it will likely hear oral arguments this year. And while a full circuit court (“en banc”) review in most circuits involves all active judges on the circuit’s bench, in the large 9th Circuit, it typically means 11 of the court’s 28 judges.

One response to “Prop 8 appeal heading to full circuit”

Due respect, but you’ve missed one INCREDIBLY important detail. En banc rehearings don’t just happen simply because someone asks. There are fairly strict criteria that must be met before the full Circuit grants rehearing. Even if we set those criteria aside, backers of Prop 8 will have to convince a majority of active judges on the Ninth Circuit that there’s a real need to do this all over again. Considering that Randy Smith, probably THE most conservative judge on the Circuit only barely sided with Prop 8 supporters, there are probably a lot of conservatives on the Circuit who won’t want to repeat this exercise. As for the liberals and moderates, they constitute a majority of the Ninth Circuit, and there’s a strong possibility they won’t want to take the chance of an en banc panel overturning this one. A rehearing is far from a done deal here.

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

A Closer Look

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26 decision striking down state bans against same-sex marriage has been touted as “probably the strongest manifesto in favor of marriage” and pilloried as “a threat to American democracy.” The huff and puff will soon die down, and here’s a look at the legal bricks that will remain standing and why some might think the dissent is crying “wolf.”

Breaking News

A U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decision Thursday could provide important remedies to thousands of federal workers who might face sexual orientation discrimination and may increase pressure on Congress to advance the ENDA.

June 26 has been solidified as the historic date for LGBT history in the United States. It is the day in 2003 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could not enforce laws prohibiting same-sex adults from having intimate relations. It is the day in 2013 when a Supreme Court procedural ruling enabled same-sex couples to marry […]

In a widely expected yet stunning victory for LGBT people nationally, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today (June 26) that state bans on marriage for same-sex couples are unconstitutional. The decision requires states to both issue marriage licenses to couples and to recognize marriage licenses obtained in other states by same-sex couples.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 decision, upheld the right of the federal government to provide health care insurance subsidies to people with low income in states that have chosen not to participate in the Affordable Care Act by setting up insurance “exchanges.”

The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, is a big political victory for the Obama administration and a big relief for people with low incomes, including many people with HIV.

It is a rare occasion when LGBT legal activists find themselves on the same side of a case as the conservative Christian Legal Society and the National Association of Evangelicals. It is also rare to find LGBT legal activists on the same side as conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and his fondness for hewing to the original explicit language of a law.

But so it was with EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch June 1, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an employer cannot escape federal law’s requirement to accommodate a job applicant’s religious practices by claiming the applicant never told the employer about his or her religious practices.